Kansas Looking at Repealing the 17th Amendment

On July 12, at Wichita State University, an event was held in Kansas to promote Republicans.  The brain-trust in attendance represented the ideas of Kansas conservative future: Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, current sitting Representative from District 4, Todd Tiahrt, the Republican who is running against Mike Pompeo (frmr. US House of Rep), and Milton Wolf, candidate for US Senate.

The gathering, sponsored by The Kansas Fairtax group, an organization who has as a chief goal the abolition of the IRS took time on Saturday to explain to Kansans why they too should be clamoring for and end to the IRS.

One notable Kansan that was pee-announced as a potential attendee who did in fact not attend became the launching point for a new discussion.  Pat Roberts, sitting US Senator elected not to attend.  His lack of attendance led the Fairtax organization to an entirely new discussion, the repeal of the 17th Amendment, or the Popular Vote for US Senators.

There are some ideas that on first blush when you are told about them you have to laugh.  They seem as though they represent the opinion of the absolute fringe.  In 2004, Republican Candidate Alan Keyes brought up the idea of ending the common election of US Senators, reverting it back to the prior method, having the statehouse chose the two representatives.

In 2004, when Keyes made his pitch, most thinking people wrote it off as quackery.  Even his fellow Republicans on stage were not impressed.

The 17th Amendment, which provided a direct election of senators by the populace was designed to help combat the wealthy from buying political power.  In the era of Citizens United that may seem a stretch, but we have to go back to history and remember what it was like before the 17th Amendment.

On Saturday, repeating the Alan Keyes talking points, Republicans in Kansas reminded us of the powerful senators who were selected prior to the 17th Amendment... Henry Clay, Calhoun and so on.

As Republicans speakers advocated getting rid of the democratic process in selecting a sitting US Senator, at one point yelling from the stage that: It is time for us to return to our constitutional government!  As it was originally imagined by our founding fathers!

This new call to repeal the 17th Amendment has apparently become a calling card for the Tea Party.  As more conservative rallies address the idea and speak of it glowingly.   The audience was asked again in Wichita:

"Do you want the government our founders imagined?"

Which of course delivered the expected cheers.  What kind of government is that though?  That repealing constitutional amendments is now a part of their rally cry toward their base.

While Republicans from the stage were keen to promote the idea of federalism and why the Senate was supposed to be 'The States House" they failed to mention exactly what precipitated the 17th Amendment.  It's funny, especially in Kansas, as the conviction of Joseph R. Burton for taking direct checks as an act of bribery happened right in their backyard.  That's right, one of the last senators sent to prison is the one that helped the push for the 17th, came from Kansas.

Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators.  Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906.  In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators.  In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

This included Senators who made their way into office after specifically bribing statehouses, and parties who intentionally refused to select.  This led to Grover Cleveland referring to the Senate as the "Robber House".

Still, nothing stopped Kansas Republicans from taking up the new talking point: Repeal the right of a popular vote.

Because as we all know, the greatest problem facing our country is there is just too darn much voting.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Federal Voter Registration Form Can Require Documents to Prove Citizenship

On March 19, U.S. District Court Judge Eric Melgren, a George W. Bush appointee, issued an opinion in Kobach v U.S. Election Assistance.

The opinion determines that Kansas and Arizona are free to require that individuals who use the federal voter registration form must attach documents that prove they are citizens.

Specifically, the decision orders the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to amend the federal forms in use in Kansas and Arizona, so that the instructions on the forms used in those states explains to applicants that the paperwork is needed.

In today’s decision, the federal district court makes three essential moves.

1. The judge expresses doubt, without resolving the question, whether the Executive Director of the EAC had the authority to decide this question. The court said it was not necessary to resolve the question because even if the EAC had a full set of commissioners and voted 4-0 to reject Arizona’s request, the EAC would still lose for other reasons.

2. The judge expresses doubt, without resolving the question, whether Congress would have the authority in the NVRA to pass a law about voter registration which would block states from collecting information, such as citizenship information, necessary to verify voter qualifications. Again, it said it did not reach the issue.

3. The judge concludes that Congress in the NVRA did not expressly preempt states from requiring citizenship information (if it did, it would raise serious constitutional questions about the NVRA). In the absence of express preemption, and in light of the doubtful constitutional power to prevent states from collecting this information, the EAC was without power to deny Arizona and Kansas their request to include the information on the federal form.

UPDATE
Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina will start a review of adding citizenship documentation to their voter registration process.

CLICK HERE to read the opinion.

We now will have to watch as this decision goes through the appeal process.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

PA Voter ID Law Struck Down

A state judge has struck down the law requiring Pennsylvania's voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley said the requirement that was the centerpiece of Pennsylvania's embattled 2012 voter identification law places an unreasonable burden on the fundamental right to vote.

The decision paves the way for an expected appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  Republicans approved the law over the protests of Democrats.

During a 12-day trial this summer, plaintiffs said hundreds of thousands of voters lacked acceptable IDs and the inconvenience of getting a photo ID might discourage some from voting.  State officials insisted there were ample opportunities for voters to get a valid ID if they had none.

The court has barred enforcement of the law since the 2012 general election.

Other states with contested PHOTO-ID Laws:

Georgia - 66,516 Georgians, according to a recent study from the Brennan Center for Justice, lack state issued photo-id, also lack vehicle access and live more than 10 miles from an office that issues state ID.  On election day with no access to an acceptable form of identification you would vote with a provisional ballot.  To verify that ballot, you'll have two days to present appropriate photo ID at your county registrar's office, which at this point wouldn't be doable.

Indiana - You're a first-time voter in Indiana who registered to vote at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles using your Social Security number, a process that also required you to get a state identification card, which you placed in your wallet.  As a recent high school graduate who commutes with other workers to your full time job on a farm, you rarely need to present identification, so you didn't even bother to get a new ID card when it went missing from your locker a few weeks before the election.  You risk potential firing when you travel to your polling place with other members of your community on voting day, but you're intent on participating in your first election.  Without valid photo ID, however, you don't get to vote using the voting rquipment.  Under Indiana's new photo ID law, you're instead required to fill out a provisional ballot.  But you're told you'll still need to jump through additional hoops that could prove too demanding.  Now tasked with making visits during business hours to both the Indiana BMV to get a replacement ID, and then to the county elections board to verify your ballot, you decide keeping your job is more important than voting.

Kansas - You're a resident of Kansas in your early 60s, fully expecting to vote in November.  Your driver's license is your primary form of ID, but you rarely carry it anymore.  You don't drive and you haven't traveled abroad in years, leaving your passport expired or lost.  In the months before the election, you changed addresses, and for some reason never received a notification from the state reminding you that your license had expired.  On the day of the election, you head to your polling place, unaware that you're about to be told your license is expired and therefore invalid according to the state's new voter ID law (Kansans over the age of 65 can use expired IDs, but you're not there yet).  You're given a provisional ballot and informed that you must now "provide a valid form of identification to the county election officer in person or provide a copy by mail or electronic means before the meeting of the county board of canvassers."  While Kansas says it has historically counted around 70 percent of its provisional ballots, this year provides a different landscape.  The next steps can be somewhat difficult, and with the enacting of the state's photo ID law, the use of such ballots will undoubtedly become more commonplace.  Faced with disenfranchisement, you must now race against the clock to have your vote included.  With no other acceptable forms of ID available, you go about the process of renewing your license.  According to the state, this requires you to make your way to a state office, where you'll have to provide a number of identifying documents and pay the fee.  By the time you can find someone to chauffeur you through this process, public transportation is complex and unreliable where you live, even if you're in an urban center, most of the major election results have been announced on the news.  You decide the undertaking isn't worth the time.

Tennessee - 230,000 Tennesseans older than 60 possess driver's licenses that don't have photos on them.  Such ID will not be accepted at polling places in November.  While the state has agreed to issue photo IDs free to anyone who asks, a recent study found that only a tiny percentage of potential targets have applied.  Poll workers will tell you that you can cast a provisional ballot on Election Day.  You'll have until "the close of business on the second business day after the election" to find an applicable piece of identification and present it to a designated elections official. Whether it's your lack of an acceptable form of identification, the difficulty in finding transportation back to the elections official, or the prospect of having to go through the drain of the entire process again, you're might get discouraged, and give up.

CLICK HERE to read Ballot Access News Editor Richard Winger's explanation of the ruling.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us